Misinformation and cycling your new nano reef tank

[cruiZe]

I started my first 15g tank with 4lbs of "group A rock" (brought home from LFS in a bucket of salt water) and 13lbs of dry rock -

 

a year later I moved all of that (now 17lbs of group A) with 40+ lbs of dry rock again to upgrade to 40b tank.

 

I have never registered any ammonia on a test in either tank setup. +1 to this thread, but also I feel it's important to go slow with additions.

[Clown79]

Unfortunately there are many methods and beliefs out there. We are talking yrs of information. What is the actual correct scientific proof?...each book and site offers conflicting answers.

 

I think there are many methods which work.

 

Look at the misinformation on lighting.

 

If a tank is cycled- why can't you remove the water? Its an issue when the tank hasn't cycled but once the cycle is complete- there shouldn't be an issue.

 

Its a general consensus through much experience and research that when ammonia is present, the cycle is not complete. The consensus has always been to wait to do a water change until there is no ammonia present.

 

Algae- i'm not sure who started the rumor that algae represents a cycle being complete? Nor why ppl advise leaving aggressive algaes alone.

 

I've experienced no algae during cycles and never base my cycling tank on algae.

I experienced diatoms 5 mnths after a cycle and according to many- diatoms appear at the end of a cycle- not always true.

 

Rocks- i've heard it all.

Rocks absorb a lot of water- die off takes a lot longer than what is being told. Liverock is not shipped in containers of water but wrapped in wet newspaper.

 

To this day the best run tanks i've had and the ones with the least issues, were the ones where I used more liverock than dry rock.

[brandon429]

Nice post Clown79 sounds fair to me.

 

Sea bass the one reason I love this place is the natural claims filter we provide. would be bored to sleep if I posted a challenge thread and our tops did not challenge it, this is live time claims filtration it's perfect

 

Any reader needs to dissect that thread, state the post number that should be changed and we eval that's my goal here. Up for first consideration is post one about test kits

 

 

Here's my address to the high points:

1. Test kit selection

http://reef2reef.com/threads/the-premise-that-every-reactive-thing-done-in-reefing-is-from-test-misreads.253391/

 

In addition to what you posted that's more links I'm collecting that show just about every test kit in reefing, probes included, is guessing. If the greater theme of my cycling read doesn't stand out as more biology less testing then it needs redaction. We speak of time frames with proofs where a poster can cycle group a rocks using no gear, even a volume calc to know how much ammonia to guess at for 1 ppm

 

We discuss how the cycle arrives even without our help, it's only time we affect, we can never stop a cycle from completion by any act other than meds or desiccation...per your thread we sure can stall a group a cycle out with water changes agreed.

 

Beyond just pico reef examples, consider the large tank work shown where full disassembly and tank relocation was required and completed, those were instances of rare access where no room for error exists.

 

Stock cycling threads from google that advise burning all rocks with ammonia don't really tell us how bacteria work at all imo

 

On shrimp

I wouldn't use those stinky things but the title of the thread reflects where the masses gravitate, most certainly. Shrimp had to be stated where they could be used accurately, contrasted to where they get used inaccurately, but the AC nitrogen source gets the big pic and 99% detail. Agreed on updated verbiage it's now on that digestion test post under not starting with fish

 

Guilty of not purchasing Api after the promise in 2008 which was a full and complete promise lol!!! Forgot on that decade heh

My conscience w be on me now lol

 

That is now amended to anyone please mail me your Api ammonia kit, I'll run it with pics, pay to mail it back. I never found em marked down below ten bucks and it was like a couple Lincolns in the trash I couldn't do it but am not dodging the test only the expenditure someone mail me one I'll mail you back your shipping money too which is more than ten but I wouldn't have to feel the commit of the purchase

 

But in the scope of opening post, even my inevitable Murphy's law reading of true zero cannot alter these Api facts:

 

I link and show in repeated threads where the .25 is wrong and it's not a bunch of salifert readings needing correcting. Those errors are there, but in the minority. What if the search returns mean the masses subjectively report things with variance but the test is scientifically solid? Either way the impact is the removal of certainty in cycling. Merely knowing when a cycle is complete cannot be had for the masses we see in threads.

 

Search returns for api were the same in 08 as they are today, not good. I find validity in that, just like how iPad search returns are wholly positive, and the two I've owned were corvettes. Given eight years iPad still does well and API does .25

 

Running the same QC strings changing out salifert for api we see differences that will never go away. Salifert ammonia misreads simply do not occupy five hundred first page search returns and api does, I think you have the burden to get that changed before the sell can be completed.

 

we listed confounds for Api that are well known, prime for example (affects more than one test kit for nitrite we see) weren't just picking on their ammonia ones. the whole premise of that thread should read that biology will give you what you need.

 

 

I would never personally have to digest test a reef, my choice is opt out of cycling always. But for those who test tedious, or use Group A rocks to control hitchhikers and don't want to ballpark it, we want to become consistent.

 

 

 

 

 

If today's cycling science was consistent my thread wouldn't be needed, the masses wouldn't be paying extra dollars for live rock and then burning the crap out of the animals on the live rock with ammonia heh

 

 

Lastly, applicability. The thread is cycling hundreds of reefs as we speak, live testing. other people's money is on the line with what we do and state there...skip cycling...coralline proves bacteria...time frames where nitrite always complies relative to what ammonia does...effects of tap water on filtration bac...

 

to me that accountability separates a claim from a burgeoning proof. At any moment someone can update "you wrecked my tank!"

 

 

it will be updated from posters with the slightest loss incurred, you know we get the negatives most not the positives. api has to re earn good status such that we stop seeing persistent .25 ammonia threads using group b rocks with open fanworms and corals doing fine and no fish panting.

 

It's still lunacy out there man.

[brandon429]

I would do one thing for sure knowing my biases.

 

Someone write an API section that is first read in my thread, which addresses my concerns but also balances SeaBass' take and I'll use that instead of mine. Most cyclers are using API 9/10 times if there is any way to use it accurately for very low level readings, and twenty different readers will get the same outcome, I want that verbiage.

[seabass]

I just know that the API ammonia test has always worked for me (and I've included numerous pics in my threads which ultimately show 0.0 ppm). Maybe it's because people new to testing typically use API and therefore have more problems (just based on experience). Maybe it's a common mistake which affects API more than Salifert (like shaking the reagents thoroughly). Or maybe there are still trace amounts of ammonia in the water column.

 

If the concern is false positives, I'd like to see the results from mature reef tanks (versus a tank which may, or may not have any ammonia in it). Some people suggest testing newly mixed saltwater as a reference to zero (thinking that it would be ammonia free); however, ammonia is a contaminant in most salt mixes (arising from magnesium chloride and calcium chloride). According to Seachem, newly mixed saltwater can contain between 0.1 and 0.8 ppm of ammonia.

[brandon429]

I just searched a bunch of example threads to check for recent search return updates on API and my posts contaminate about eighty percent of them still lol that sets the bar nice n high for API but is pure bias nonetheless

 

Agreed on initial readings after mix, it's sustaining that past 24 hours among group B rocks that's gets me going each time. Threads show this repeatedly

 

Posters will universally claim a dead worm is causing it we see

 

It seems if someone tries to write a one size fits all cycling thread API must be mentioned, and how to frame it is under review. Even though you dont have issues, would you agree the masses are reading their ref cards correctly, see light green as you do, are meniscus considerate, shake reagent correctly, don't mix up the fw and sw cards, such that API can be framed for the masses as an ideal low level reading system for ammonia? If we wouldn't offer API like that, which one should be the reco? They all seem to be off I had to go with salifert but w change if needed

 

 

The number one fallacy in the persistent .25 thread, using coralline thick live rock, wide open active animals, fish behaving normally, is that it disregards the known digestion abilities live rocks demonstrate within 24 hours (several ppm)

 

A true persistent .25 means ~4.75 ppm is being digested and only that tail end remains...always...animals fine...water not cloudy...no smell which we define as skunk-like...day after day. How that doesn't implicate the test kit has confounded me more than ten yrs. something way beyond a worm must be rotting to sustain 5ppm every day

[seabass]

Yeah, IDK. It's the in between results that are hard for me to interpret (undetectable is usually pretty easy). I have to say that the test isn't all that complicated, but you can't rule out user error in either performing the test, or reading the test.

 

Lighting might have something to do with it (it should be examined in natural daylight). I'm not really sure how looking at it under reef lights would affect the appearance. Sometimes it's easier for me to examine in photos than with the naked eye (maybe similar to the concept that photos which aren't white balanced, tend to look more blue than our brains interpret).

 

I go back to testing mature reef tanks. If we can establish that API ammonia tests tend to accurately show ammonia is undetectable in mature reef tanks, then we can confidently use them to detect ammonia in new tanks.

[brandon429]

we should place any cycling link one can find online here and let's inspect for completeness and change the above one if needed.

 

 

Make the one stop cycle thread be linked here if it's not already.

 

Part of the reason mines two pages is to demo reasons/make science points that two groups of rock have two opposite ammonia requirements and how critical testing accurately is, knowing most people debate it.

 

my distilled down cycling points are:

 

 

-we must prove and choose test brand/procedure initially or don't use it at all and go off the time frames from the charts online. They are all 30-40 days for a known reason. Everything you are attempting in cycling is to beat that time frame, sooner, and you can. I beat it in my reefs by not cycling at all, ever, using a certain group of rocks. Not any cycling is opted into by me. The time frame alone and no test kits and ordered steps can cycle your tank plenty for a light starting bioload.

-we cannot speak cycling language without knowing the differences between rock groups. All current cycling material does not separate rock groups

-live rock must be killed by long term emersion or meds it is not killed by short term emersion or withholding feed and especially, #1, above all, live rock never dies when you move tanks. even if the tanks are at different addresses. If it did die one of the two killing methods above occurred, but the move didn't kill it.

-die off in live rocks is never super low level ammonia, sustained, see digest testing.

-digest testing is the single test that tells the finite day a cycle ends

-ammonia is used in fully opposite ways depending on rock groups or we are self defeating

-having to test for anything beyond ammonia is not required in any cycle (yes, am saying old cycling info is wrong) given known time frames and boosters considered in any prediction. Nitrite and nitrate info isn't required and add extra error steps when undertaken, see point#1

 

 

 

we can take the challenger link, alter it none, then answer the next cycle question posted with it as a test, then link it all here for review

 

 

Clown79 we've been discussing cycling in other threads here is a great place.

Cycling does need to be simplified, post the ideal cycling link or make a set of highlight points we can post into the next cycle question thread to see if the link will handle their questions

 

Right here we can emerge with the agreed upon link that can be used for nano cycling.

[seabass]

An API ammonia test result (taken today) from one of my mature tanks:

#undetectable

[seabass]

But I don't have problems with the other sections of your challenge. However, I still don't think you've proven that the majority of API users get false positives from water that doesn't have ammonia in it (like from a mature reef tank).

 

This is the first link that popped up in the Google search you asked me to make (a tropicalfishkeeping.com thread from 2014). The OP had an uncycled 5 gallon tank with a fish in it, and he detected some ammonia (no surprise there). So as a test, he tested his tap water (which is not a good reference for zero), which also showed some ammonia. Still skeptical, he tested distilled water (however not 100% distilled water, but a mixture of distilled water and tap water). When this still showed some ammonia, he concluded a false positive. Later the member Tolak remarked that a few years prior, API ammonia tests had problems with distilled water testing at 0.25ppm of ammonia (I haven't heard that before, so I don't know if there is any truth to it).

 

I'm not sure that this tells us anything about the inaccuracies of the test, just that his assumptions were flawed and there might have been a problem with the kits several years earlier. Even if you were to come up with several untainted examples (especially from people testing mature tanks), this doesn't support the assumption that a statistically large number of people are getting false positive readings from recently purchased API ammonia test kits. I mean, what percent of people start threads about their API ammonia test kits that worked as expected (people only post when they get results they weren't expecting).

 

I submit that more members should test their mature reef tanks with an API ammonia test and post pictures, no matter what the result (assuming they haven't just recently done a water change). Then we could judge for ourselves, instead of relying on possibly tainted examples from newer tanks (which could conceivably have some detectable ammonia in it).

[brandon429]

thanks for contributing we need the counterpoints. What did the rest of the search return page look like after that one link

 

you are convincing me to search for a way to make the kits accurate via streamlined use so that more true zeros are used to base cycling decisions

 

A middle ground in between don't use them at all and when to second-guess them

 

maybe from using two sep api kits at least as a compare vs flat out disregard... but im needing to understand the .25 threads where literally only the kit says it and its not possible biologically. clearly some will have errors I know, but if we can make the majority reliable that's enough for me to change the reco

[seabass]

I don't have any stake in API, I just know that I've used several API ammonia test kits and have never experienced what you are describing.

 

if I posted a thread right now with .25 reported, group b rock, all open corals, fanworms, no clouding, been .25 for a week:

1. do you think the .25 is right

2. if so, what causes it and how are the animals not reacting to free ammonia well above what the coralline rock digests? if the one week scenario isn't long enough (dieoff is everyones claim, agreed, its always a worm never the kit) I do believe I have a 14 day thread handy for persistent .25 all life just fine, in pics.

For the purpose of determining the validity of using API ammonia test kits, I think you need to look beyond new tanks that show trace amounts of ammonia. We know that some hitchhikers can survive higher ammonia levels than what we are talking about (somewhere between 0.0 and 0.25ppm).

 

If we want to validate the ability for API ammonia test kits to correctly determine if ammonia is near zero, we should be testing mature reef tanks (not newer tanks). As a reference test, I tested my RO/DI water (which should test undetectable, but chloramine could still allow some ammonia to pass through the carbon block and RO membrane).

Testing freshwater yields a clearer yellow than when testing saltwater.

[brandon429]

Where's a link that shows how much free ammonia they will survive

 

We also use the visual identifier of them being open and active not just dead, the many .25 threads have normally acting animals and RHF ammonia links paint a different picture of toxicity

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/rhf/

Do you have any links where we determined a persistent .25 to be accurate for group B rocks let's see what led to the conclusion

[brandon429]

The key trick of the persistent .25 is that it implies actually 2-3+ sustained input source. My debate here is only for group B rock where people make up dieoff to match a reading but they can never show you the dieoff in pics. They'll post pics of all living creatures

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33867

 

I'm trying to search how to convert those ld-50 levels into parts per million

 

We could easily use the API kit to establish a .25 reading in a test Beaker with pods in it and see if they die or live

 

We could change out their test water everyday and reset it at .25 so their own wastes are not a compound even though they are miniscule

[seabass]

Where's a link that shows how much free ammonia they will survive

Exactly, where is it? You are assuming that the presence of "open corals, fanworms, no clouding" indicates no ammonia. Is this accurate? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. However, it does show that these animals are not in a state of high stress. So, if you were to monitor the cycle of group B rocks, without testing for ammonia, these would be the signs to look for. But to state that there is absolutely no ammonia at this point might be a slight stretch.

 

We also use the visual identifier of them being open and active not just dead, the many .25 threads have normally acting animals and RHF ammonia links paint a different picture of toxicity

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/rhf/

From the link you provided, "... and because some organisms in a reef aquarium may be more sensitive than the few organisms that have been carefully studied, it is prudent to err on the side of caution when deciding what concentrations of ammonia to allow in a reef aquarium or related system.

 

My suggestion is to take some sort of corrective action if the total ammonia rises above 0.1 ppm. This suggestion is also made by Stephen Spotte in his authoritative text, Captive Seawater Fishes. Values in excess of 0.25 ppm total ammonia may require immediate treatment, preferably involving removal of all delicate (ammonia sensitive) organisms from the water containing the ammonia." This indicates that these recommendations might actually be lower than what is absolutely necessary (especially for hardy animals).

 

Assuming the tests are accurate, many of the 0.25 ppm threads likely contain somewhere between 0.0 and 0.25 ppm of ammonia (but likely less than 0.25 ppm). The ammonia level in these tanks (while pressent) might still be less than where these hardy hitchhikers show signs of stress.

[brandon429]

I stated there would be no ammonia at that point because live rocks can digest 2 - 3 parts per million

 

It was always amazing to me in those links none of the authors ever mention test kit variation

 

If some kits are really indicating zero that's my entire point. Of a group of .25 reactions taking place some or all of it is unnecessary but the biological clues won't mislead

 

When I get back later on I will change some of that wording

[seabass]

My assumption is that, in most of these cases where some ammonia is detected by API kits, there actually is some ammonia in the water. Whether or not another test kit is capable of detecting this ammonia isn't as important to the discussion. Might there be a point where a ammonia is low enough for hardy animals to not show signs of stress, but still register on an API ammonia test kit? Possibly.

Here is a potentially a more significant point of discussion around ammonia test kits. If one kit tests total ammonia (like the API kit does), and another only test free ammonia (which MIGHT be happening here with Salifert), then not only would you get two different values, but hardy animals might not show signs of stress even though total ammonia is testing between 0.0 and 0.25 ppm. At pH 8.2 only about 7% of the ammonia is present as free ammonia, with 93% present as ammonium.

 

Maybe we should be more concerned about these cases where Salifert ammonia test kits are not being able to detect Dr.Tim's Ammonium Chloride. It is supposed to test for total ammonia.

[ReefSafeSolutions]

OK, so one thing I'm not seeing in the thread here, is the effect of Dr. Tim's/BioSpira on the cycle. I saw in one of the earlier posts that Group A cycles at around 40 days, but that time could be affected by Dr. Tim's. Is the 40-day mark assuming no Dr. Tim's was used?

[seabass]

OK, so one thing I'm not seeing in the thread here, is the effect of Dr. Tim's/BioSpira on the cycle. I saw in one of the earlier posts that Group A cycles at around 40 days, but that time could be affected by Dr. Tim's. Is the 40-day mark assuming no Dr. Tim's was used?

I assume so. Here is a guide to using nitrifying bacteria and ammonium chloride to cycle a tank with group A rocks: http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/fishless-cycling (it should take less than half that time).

[ReefSafeSolutions]

I'll give that a read...thanks!

[brandon429]

Hey sea I changed the first page up I bet you'll think it's fairer. The misreads have to be addressed for the times posted (distilled water example tests etc or for user error having nothing to do with brand name) so it seems ok to ask for verifications which out test comparison thread says applies to any param before making tank reactions (we showed most major brands being shown wrong in comparison threads)

 

On the above, I didn't think low level ammonia just below tolerance levels exists for our API detection since live rock digests 2 ppm in 24 hours it has to be grabbing .1 increments pretty fast

 

Yes to low levels if dealing with group A rocks

 

 

 

For the reference thread I'm changing away from name brand doubt as much as human variance + and no verification being doubtful, which addresses Red Sea misreads just the same. Nice carving and holding your stance. Purchasing of API isn't lessening, it's growing, must incorporate.

 

we are doing well using visual biology (not killing people's tanks in skip cycles there for example) vs any testing at all, I get less harsh on API with that in mind.

[OllieNZ]

Post a link where coralline on a rock doesn't indicate full bac ability (coralline indicates time submerged, nutrients, and seeding conditions marine bac require)

 

Recently purchased this dry from my lfs

If they'd tossed it in their live rock tub it could have been fairly misleading.....

[seabass]

Hey sea I changed the first page up I bet you'll think it's fairer.

It's definitely better. I'm glad you're not singling out API specifically. I guess I just place a little more value in ammonia testing to determine when the nitrogen cycle has become established (for the existing bio-load) than you do; however, I won't press you on this point any further. Your method isn't wrong, and I can even see a benefit to it. But like many things in this hobby, there is often more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.

 

On the above, I didn't think low level ammonia just below tolerance levels exists for our API detection since live rock digests 2 ppm in 24 hours it has to be grabbing .1 increments pretty fast.

If that were true of rock in all states of curing, daily testing would look something like this:

• Day 1) 4 ppm of ammonia
• Day 2) 2 ppm of ammonia
• Day 3) undetectable ammonia, and the tank is fully "cycled"

But in reality, it could take a week or more before bacteria populations are sufficient to process just the amount of ammonia that the rock is generating (for ammonia to stop climbing). And it could take several weeks before ammonia becomes undetectable.

 

We have seen hitchhikers survive relatively high ammonia levels (certainly as high as 2 ppm). Does the presence of life exclude the presence of ammonia? No.

 

However, when cycling group B rocks without testing for ammonia, is it relatively safe to use visual clues to determine when you can add a cleanup crew? Probably (even though I might argue that ammonia might still be detectable by some test kits).

[seabass]

Recently purchased this dry from my lfs. If they'd tossed it in their live rock tub it could have been fairly misleading.

It would be misleading to the consumer. And since it's not really coralline algae, we can't consider them group B rocks.

 

Coralline algae does represent "time submerged, nutrients, and seeding conditions marine bac require"; however, I don't believe the presence of it will tell you that this rock has been fully cured ("cycled" to the point that it can process at least as much ammonia as it is generating). I believe that this would have to be determined by ammonia tests, or at least other visual cues. However, the presence of it would put it into group B; at least that's what I think Brandon was getting at.

[brandon429]

I've built too many skip cycles linked in one place for you to claim that without a thread.

 

 

was only talking about group b rock it has no ramp up listed above that's adding extra details. It grabs ammonia fast

 

 

In earlier search return discussions it seemed we left out the rest of the page API search returns page and those need to be changing in time to support your cause, we cannot invalidate collective feedback. There has to be positioning among test kits we write about, API is either first or last imo and if it's not first, why? It's cheapest?

 

not done editing yet that's 1 am draft but still in agreement we have to allow room for API it's the lions share market.

 

have not addressed the search returns against your api claim, the supporting ones are few and cannot be discounted to produce reliability gradients among test kits. So API still needs to be sold as more often right per thirty posters running the kit vs salifert for your claim to hold yet they don't say that online.

 

you have presented though that fanworms stay open, fish won't pant, and corals stay open and that low level ammonia indicated by API is reliable and that you expect things to live, not die, in the presence of true low level ammonia as my takeaway understanding.

 

Use that in a group b thread and post it after verifying what caused the low level ammonia and what survived after a week and pics along the way. We provide exactly the opposite of that with pics in the ref thread.

 

If our guesses were wrong, some large ammonia death events would be mixed in... if dieoff really happens as claimed, yet we lose none, ever.

 

 

My offer is to show why we get results one can read and replicate and reply...it's not to make up claims. I feel attribution errors you hint would've manifested as reported losses not wildly replicated skip cycles

 

However I did ask for detail nerding and I still like it much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had introduced smell testing and fanworm reactions as reliable after practicing it and cycling others tanks with the method

 

that's a way to run group B transitions SeaBass without testing. We pair that with the other bioindicators we use to skip cycle and link any number of tanks that want the option.

 

 

 

we provided a list well beyond coralline for that post above about how dry coralline looks like real coralline, and no lfs I know rips people off if they ask for live rock but for the purposes of making a web post point I can see the point. We are not turning out lesser able cyclers in the thread, we want them keen to verifications not required by purchasing something. Eyes and nose works

 

 

It would be easier to critique the method having any link to compare for better results although the specifics on testing is worth all this so far.